Plaintiff,
Ronald Lee Converse, sued the City of Kemah Police Department
and Kemah Police Officers James Melton, Ruben Kimball, Marcus
Way, and Daniel Kirby, Police Dispatcher Anna Marie Whelan,
and Police Chief Greg Rikard, in their individual capacities.
Converse alleges that his son, Chad Silvis, committed suicide
in April 2014 by hanging himself in a jail cell, using a
blanket given to him by one of the officers.

Converse
brings claims on his own behalf as well as his son‘s
estate. The mother of Silvis‘s minor child has
intervened, filing nearly identical claims as next friend of
Silvis‘s minor child. Each of the Defendants moved to
dismiss the claims against them. This Court dismissed some,
but not all, of the claims. Specifically, the Court denied
motions to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claims against
Officers Way, Kimball, Melton, and Kirby, and against
Dispatcher Whelan. Dkt. 51.

Some
limited discovery regarding these remaining Defendants and
their assertions of qualified immunity then took place, and
Plaintiff and Intervenor (for ease of reference,
''Plaintiffs'') have filed a Second Amended
Complaint, Dkt. 75. Defendants have again moved to dismiss
the remaining claims against them. Dkt. 81.

The
Second Amended Complaint alleges that, at twenty minutes
after midnight on April 11, 2014, a passerby told Officer
Marcus Way of the City of Kemah Police Department that a
person appeared to be preparing to jump off of a nearby
bridge. Officer Way used his radio to report a possible
''jumper, '' and Plaintiffs allege that the
report was heard by Officer Melton, Dispatcher Whelan, and
Officer Kimball. Officer Way then went to the bridge, saw
Silvis sitting on the bridge railing with his feet over the
edge, confirmed via his radio to Dispatcher Whelan that there
was a indeed ''jumper, '' and asked for
additional officers. Officers Kimball and Melton arrived at
the bride, and along with Officer War, they heard Silvis
state that he was going to jump off the bridge. Silvis was
eventually grabbed by officers, including Officers Kimball,
Way, and Melton, and then handcuffed. Plaintiffs allege that
Silvis maintained that he wanted to commit suicide throughout
the entire interaction on the bridge, and that he appeared
''depressed'' as he was taken to the City of
Kemah Jail. Plaintiffs allege that Silvis continued to speak
of committing suicide throughout his interaction with
Defendants, including stating, ''Let‘s do it
again tomorrow.”

After
Silvis‘s arrest, Plaintiffs allege that Officer Kimball
prepared a cell in the ''very small'' City of
Kemah Jail, and that he ''gave Mr. Silvis a blanket
which could be easily used by an inmate to hang or strangle
themselves.'' Plaintiffs allege that Officer Kimball
did not give Silvis a suicide smock, even though one was
available, because he ''decided-on his own-that Mr.
Silvis was not serious and was no longer a threat to
himself.'' Officer Way is alleged to have instructed
Officer Kimball to remove Silvis‘s shoes, and to have
entered Silvis‘s cell without removing the blanket.

Plaintiffs
specifically allege that Officer Kimball, Officer Way,
Dispatcher Whelan and Officer Melton each visited
Silvis‘s cell after he was locked into it and
''observed the suicidal Silvis in his cell by himself
with a blanket which each knew Silvis could easily kill
himself with.'' Plaintiffs also allege that each of
these Defendants knew that Silvis‘s cell contained a
bunkbed where a suicidal person could tie off a blanket.
Plaintiffs then allege that ''Silvis was left in
isolated in a solitary cell, with the blanket with no
monitoring, either in person or through the video cameras in
the cell or checks instituted. Defendants Whelan, Melton,
Way, and Kimball did nothing to ensure any monitoring
occurred.'' Plaintiffs allege that the cell door had
a window to allow jail personnel to see inside the cell.

After
Silvis was placed in the cell, he yelled and banged on the
cell door, asked for a cigarette, asked for a nurse because
his hands hurt, and said that he should have jumped.
According to Plaintiffs, each of the Defendants heard Silvis
''yelling and banging'' and interacted with
him in the ''small'' jail area during the
relevant time period. After Silvis was placed into the cell,
Officer Melton spoke to him at least twice through the window
on the cell door, asking him to be quiet and
''promis[ing] him a cigarette if he could be quiet
for 30 minutes.'' However, according to Plaintiffs,
Defendant Melton ''ignored the blanket lying on the
floor, '' did not provide a suicide smock, and failed
to return after the promised 30 minutes. Instead, Plaintiffs
allege that Officer Melton was ''watching television
on the internet, entirely missing the painful minutes [of
Silvis‘s suicide].'' Then, at 1:44 am-one hour
and twenty-four minutes after Officer Wray was first told
there was a man on the bridge-Silvis hanged himself with the
blanket from the top bunk. He is alleged to have died several
minutes later. Silvis‘s body was discovered by jail
personnel at 2:30 a.m.

Plaintiffs
generally allege that ''Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to the serious risks associated with the mental
state of Mr. Silvis and the risks/mental health issues posed
to prevent this unfortunate death.'' More
specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that these Defendants
failed to provide (or even request) medical care for
Silvis‘ injured hand or mental health issues, that they
further failed to provide a suicide smock or other
appropriate covering for Silvis, and that they failed to
properly monitor him once he was placed into the jail cell.
Plaintiffs allege that the City of Kemah had a written
policy, and had trained its personnel, that suicidal
detainees were not to be given blankets in their cells, were
instead to be provided a ''suicide smock, ''
and they were to be monitored ''frequently,
'' but they allege that each of these Defendants
ignored or violated those policies. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the City of Kemah‘s Jail policies require
any medical requests from detainees ''to be taken to
the shift supervisor [here, Officer Melton]'' and the
policies forbid any employee from ignoring or diagnosing a
medical complaint from a detainee. Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants were trained on these policies by the City of
Kemah, as well as courses administered by the Texas
Commission on Law Enforcement, but that these Defendants
failed to adhere to these standards and policies. Plaintiffs
also allege that ''Defendants Whelan, Way, Melton and
Kimball were aware of several media reports of inmates dying
of suicides using bedding in jails, '' and they were
aware ''jail suicide was the leading cause of death
in Texas jails and that bedding hanging was the most frequent
method of suicide.''

APPLICABLE
LAW

The
Court‘s previous Memorandum Opinion and Order set out
the applicable standards for motions to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), as well as the law governing claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the defense of qualified immunity. All of
those standards are incorporated into the following analysis.

ANALYSIS

The
Court has previously dismissed all of the claims under the
Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment claims against the
City of Kemah and Police Chief Rikard, and all of the claims
under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court now
turns to the remaining Defendants‘ contention that the
Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under §
1983 for the deprivation of Silvis‘s Fourteenth
Amendment rights against Officers Way, Kimball, Melton, and
Kirby, and Dispatcher Whelan.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Court examines the claims against the individual officers
through the lens of Rule 12(b)(6), looking at the allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint to determine whether it
alleges specific facts that, if true, would be sufficient to:
(1) demonstrate liability, i.e., that each
individual defendant had &#39;&#39;subjective knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm to [Silvis] but responded
with deliberate indifference, &#39;&#39; and (2) to overcome
qualified immunity, i.e., that each ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.